User login
The research‐in‐progress (RIP) conference is commonplace in academia, but there are no studies that objectively characterize its value. Bringing faculty together away from revenue‐generating activities carries a significant cost. As such, measuring the success of such gatherings is necessary.
Mentors are an invaluable influence on the careers of junior faculty members, helping them to produce high‐quality research.13 Unfortunately, some divisions lack mentorship to support the academic needs of less experienced faculty.1 Peer mentorship may be a solution. RIP sessions represent an opportunity to intentionally formalize peer mentoring. Further, these sessions can facilitate collaborations as individuals become aware of colleagues' interests. The goal of this study was to assess the value of the research‐in‐progress conference initiated within the hospitalist division at our institution.
Methods
Study Design
This cohort study was conducted to evaluate the value of the RIP conference among hospitalists in our division and the academic outcomes of the projects.
Setting and Participants
The study took place at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center (JHBMC), a 335‐bed university‐affiliated medical center in Baltimore, Maryland. The hospitalist division consists of faculty physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (20.06 FTE physicians and 7.41 FTE midlevel providers). Twelve (54%) of our faculty members are female, and the mean age of providers is 35.7 years. The providers have been practicing hospitalist medicine for 3.0 years on average; 2 (9%) are clinical associates, 16 (73%) are instructors, and 3 (14%) are assistant professors.
All faculty members presenting at the RIP session were members of the division. A senior faculty member (a professor in the Division of General Internal Medicine) helps to coordinate the conference. The group's research assistant was present at the sessions and was charged with data collection and collation.
The Johns Hopkins University institutional review board approved the study.
The Research in Progress Conference
During the 2009 academic year, our division held 15 RIP sessions. At each session, 1 faculty member presented a research proposal. The goal of each session was to provide a forum where faculty members could share their research ideas (specific aims, hypotheses, planned design, outcome measures, analytic plans, and preliminary results [if applicable]) in order to receive feedback. The senior faculty member met with the presenter prior to each session in order to: (1) ensure that half the RIP time was reserved for discussion and (2) review the presenter's goals so these would be made explicit to peers. The coordinator of the RIP conference facilitated the discussion, solicited input from all attendees, and encouraged constructive criticism.
Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis
At the end of each session, attendees (who were exclusively members of the hospitalist division) were asked to complete an anonymous survey. The 1‐page instrument was designed (1) with input from curriculum development experts4 and (2) after a review of the literature about RIP conferences. These steps conferred content validity to the instrument, which assessed perceptions about the session's quality and what was learned. Five‐point Likert scales were used to characterize the conference's success in several areas, including being intellectually/professionally stimulating and keeping them apprised of their colleagues' interests. The survey also assessed the participatory nature of the conference (balance of presentation vs discussion), its climate (extremely critical vs extremely supportive), and how the conference assisted the presenter. The presenters completed a distinct survey related to how helpful the conference was in improving/enhancing their projects. A final open‐ended section invited additional comments. The instrument was piloted and iteratively revised before its use in this study.
For the projects presented, we assessed the percentage that resulted in a peer‐reviewed publication or a presentation at a national meeting.
Results
The mean number of attendees at the RIP sessions was 9.6 persons. A total of 143 evaluations were completed. All 15 presenters (100%) completed their assessments. The research ideas presented spanned a breadth of topics in clinical research, quality improvement, policy, and professional development (Table 1).
| Session | Date | Presenter | Topic | Evaluations Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7/2008 | Dr. CS | Hospital medicine in Canada versus the United States | 7 |
| 2 | 7/2008 | Dr. RT | Procedures by hospitalists | 9 |
| 3 | 8/2008 | Dr. MA | Clostridium difficile treatment in the hospital | 11 |
| 4 | 8/2008 | Dr. EH | Active bed management | 6 |
| 5 | 9/2008 | Dr. AS | Medication reconciliation for geriatric inpatients | 10 |
| 6 | 9/2008 | Dr. DT | Time‐motion study of hospitalists | 10 |
| 7 | 10/2008 | Dr. KV | e‐Triage pilot | 16 |
| 8 | 11/2008 | Dr. EH | Assessing clinical performance of hospitalists | 7 |
| 9 | 12/2008 | Dr. SC | Trends and implications of hospitalists' morale | 8 |
| 10 | 1/2009 | Dr. TB | Lessons learned: tracking urinary catheter use at Bayview | 11 |
| 11 | 2/2009 | Dr. FK | Utilizing audit and feedback to improve performance in tobacco dependence counseling | 12 |
| 12 | 3/2009 | Dr. MK | Survivorship care plans | 7 |
| 13 | 4/2009 | Dr. DK | Outpatient provider preference for discharge summary format/style/length | 7 |
| 14 | 5/2009 | Dr. RW | Comparing preoperative consults done by hospitalists and cardiologists | 11 |
| 15 | 6/2009 | Dr. AK | Development of Web‐based messaging tool for providers | 12 |
Presenter Perspective
All 15 presenters (100%) felt a lot or tremendously supported during their sessions. Thirteen physicians (86%) believed that the sessions were a lot or tremendously helpful in advancing their projects. The presenters believed that the guidance and discussions related to their research ideas, aims, hypotheses, and plans were most helpful for advancing their projects (Table 2).
| Not at All, n (%) | A Little, n (%) | Some, n (%) | A Lot, n (%) | Tremendously, n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General questions: | |||||
| Intellectually/professionally stimulating | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (33) | 10 (66) |
| Feeling supported by your colleagues in your scholarly pursuits | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (27) | 11 (73) |
| Session helpful in the following areas: | |||||
| Advancing your project | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 5 (33) | 8 (53) |
| Generated new hypotheses | 1 (6) | 3 (20) | 5 (33) | 5 (33) | 1 (6) |
| Clarification of research questions | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 4 (27) | 7 (47) | 2 (13) |
| Ideas for alternate methods | 1 (6) | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 7 (47) | 4 (27) |
| New outcomes suggested | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 2 (13) | 5 (33) | 5 (33) |
| Strategies to improve or enhance data collection | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 0 (0) | 8 (53) | 5 (33) |
| Suggestions for alternate analyses or analytical strategies | 1 (1) | 1 (6) | 4 (27) | 5 (33) | 4 (27) |
| Input into what is most novel/emnteresting about this work | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 3 (20) | 6 (40) | 4 (27) |
| Guidance about the implications of the work | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 1 (6) | 7 (47) | 4 (27) |
| Ideas about next steps or future direction/studies | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (21) | 8 (57) | 3 (21) |
Examples of the written comments are:
I was overwhelmed by how engaged people were in my project.
The process of preparing for the session and then the discussion both helped my thinking. Colleagues were very supportive.
I am so glad I heard these comments and received this feedback now, rather than from peer reviewers selected by a journal to review my study. It would have been a much more difficult situation to fix at that later time.
Attendee Perspective
The majority of attendees (123 of 143, 86%) found the sessions to be a lot or extremely stimulating, and almost all (96%) were a lot or extremely satisfied with how the RIP sessions kept them abreast of their colleagues' academic interests. In addition, 92% judged the session's climate to be a lot or extremely supportive, and 88% deemed the balance of presentation to discussion to be just right. Attendees believed that they were most helpful to the presenter in terms of conceiving ideas for alternative methods to be used to answer the research question and in providing strategies to improve data collection (Table 3).
| Insight Offered | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Ideas for alternate methods | 92 (64%) |
| Strategies to improve data collection | 85 (59.4%) |
| New hypotheses generated | 84 (58.7%) |
| Ideas for next steps/future direction/studies | 83 (58%) |
| New outcomes suggested that should be considered | 69 (48%) |
| Clarification of the research questions | 61 (43%) |
| Input about what is most novel/emnteresting about the work | 60 (42%) |
| Guidance about the real implications of the work | 59 (41%) |
| Suggestions for alternate analyses or analytical strategies | 51 (36%) |
The free text comments primarily addressed how the presenters' research ideas were helped by the session:
There were great ideas for improvementincluding practical approaches for recruitment.
The session made me think of the daily routine things that we do that could be studied.
There were some great ideas to help Dr. A make the study more simple, doable, and practical. There were also some good ideas regarding potential sources of funding.
Academic Success
Of the 15 projects, 6 have been published in peer‐reviewed journals as first‐ or senior‐authored publications.510 Of these, 3 were presented at national meetings prior to publication. Four additional projects have been presented at a national society's annual meeting, all of which are being prepared for publication. Of the remaining 5 presentations, 4 were terminated because of the low likelihood of academic success. The remaining project is ongoing.
Comparatively, scholarly output in the prior year by the 24 physicians in the hospitalist group was 4 first‐ or senior‐authored publications in peer‐reviewed journals and 3 presentations at national meetings.
Discussion
In this article, we report our experience with the RIP conference. The sessions were perceived to be intellectually stimulating and supportive, whereas the discussions proved helpful in advancing project ideas. Ample discussion time and good attendance were thought to be critical to the success.
To our knowledge, this is the first article gathering feedback from attendees and presenters at a RIP conference and to track academic outcomes. Several types of meetings have been established within faculty and trainee groups to support and encourage scholarly activities.11, 12 The benefits of peer collaboration and peer mentoring have been described in the literature.13, 14 For example, Edwards described the success of shortstop meetings among small groups of faculty members every 4‐6 weeks in which discussions of research projects and mutual feedback would occur.15 Santucci described peer‐mentored research development meetings, with increased research productivity.12
Mentoring is critically important for academic success in medicine.1619 When divisions have limited senior mentors available, peer mentoring has proven to be indispensable as a mechanism to support faculty members.2022 The RIP conference provided a forum for peer mentoring and provided a partial solution to the limited resource of experienced research mentors in the division. The RIP sessions appear to have helped to bring the majority of presented ideas to academic fruition. Perhaps even more important, the sessions were able to terminate studies judged to have low academic promise before the faculty had invested significant time.
Several limitations of our study should be considered. First, this study involved a research‐in‐progress conference coordinated for a group of hospitalist physicians at 1 institution, and the results may not be generalizable. Second, although attendance was good at each conference, some faculty members did not come to many sessions. It is possible that those not attending may have rated the sessions differently. Session evaluations were anonymous, and we do not know whether specific attendees rated all sessions highly, thereby resulting in some degree of clustering. Third, this study did not compare the effectiveness of the RIP conference with other peer‐mentorship models. Finally, our study was uncontrolled. Although it would not be possible to restrict specific faculty from presenting at or attending the RIP conference, we intend to more carefully collect attendance data to see whether there might be a dose‐response effect with respect to participation in this conference and academic success.
In conclusion, our RIP conference was perceived as valuable by our group and was associated with academic success. In our division, the RIP conference serves as a way to operationalize peer mentoring. Our findings may help other groups to refine either the focus or format of their RIP sessions and those wishing to initiate such a conference.
- ,,, et al.Junior faculty members' mentoring relationships and their professional development in US medical schools.Acad Med.1998;73:318–323.
- ,.Mentors, Advisors and Role Models in Graduate and Professional Education.Washington, DC:Association of Academic Health Centers;1996.
- ,.Characteristics of the successful researcher and implications for faculty development.J Med Educ.1986;61:22–31.
- ,,.Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six‐Step Approach.2nd ed.Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press;2009.
- ,,, et al.Characteristics of hospitalists and hospitalist programs in the United States and Canada.J Clin Outcomes Meas.2009;16:69–74
- ,,, et al.Procedures performed by hospitalist and non‐hospitalist general internists.J Gen Intern Med.2010;25:448–452.
- ,,, et al.Intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of severe Clostridium difficile colitis: an observational study and review of the literature [review].J Hosp Med.2010;5:E1–E9.
- ,,, et al.Active bed management by hospitalists and emergency department throughput.Ann Intern Med.2008;149:804–811.
- ,,, et al.Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers.J Gen Intern Med.2009;24(Suppl 2):S459–S466.
- ,,, et al.Utilizing audit and feedback to improve hospitalists' performance in tobacco dependence counseling.Nicotine Tob Res.2010;12:797–800.
- ,,, et al.An internal medicine interest group research program can improve scholarly productivity of medical students and foster mentoring relationships with internists.Teach Learn Med.2008;20:163–167.
- ,,, et al.Peer‐mentored research development meeting: a model for successful peer mentoring among junior level researchers.Acad Psychiatry.2008;32:493–497.
- ,,, et al.Mentoring junior faculty in geriatric oncology: report from the cancer and aging research group.J Clin Oncol.2008;26:3125–3127.
- ,,the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.Investigator‐led clinical research consortia: the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.Crit Care Med.2009;37(1):S165–S172.
- .“Short stops”: peer support of scholarly activity.Acad Med.2002;77:939.
- ,,,,,,.Mentorship in academic general internal medicine. Results of a survey of mentors.J Gen Intern Med.2005;20:1014–1018.
- ,,, et al.Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees.Acad Med.2009;84:140–144.
- ,,.Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review.JAMA.2006;296:1103–1115.
- ,,, et al.Assessing the role of influential mentors in the research development of primary care fellows.Acad Med.2004;79:865–872.
- ,,.Peer group mentoring of junior faculty.Acad Psychiatry.2008;32:230–235.
- ,,,.Facilitated peer mentorship: a pilot program for academic advancement of female medical faculty.J Womens Health.2008;17:1009–1015.
- ,Mentoring faculty in academic medicine. A new paradigm?J Gen Intern Med.2005;20:866–870.
The research‐in‐progress (RIP) conference is commonplace in academia, but there are no studies that objectively characterize its value. Bringing faculty together away from revenue‐generating activities carries a significant cost. As such, measuring the success of such gatherings is necessary.
Mentors are an invaluable influence on the careers of junior faculty members, helping them to produce high‐quality research.13 Unfortunately, some divisions lack mentorship to support the academic needs of less experienced faculty.1 Peer mentorship may be a solution. RIP sessions represent an opportunity to intentionally formalize peer mentoring. Further, these sessions can facilitate collaborations as individuals become aware of colleagues' interests. The goal of this study was to assess the value of the research‐in‐progress conference initiated within the hospitalist division at our institution.
Methods
Study Design
This cohort study was conducted to evaluate the value of the RIP conference among hospitalists in our division and the academic outcomes of the projects.
Setting and Participants
The study took place at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center (JHBMC), a 335‐bed university‐affiliated medical center in Baltimore, Maryland. The hospitalist division consists of faculty physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (20.06 FTE physicians and 7.41 FTE midlevel providers). Twelve (54%) of our faculty members are female, and the mean age of providers is 35.7 years. The providers have been practicing hospitalist medicine for 3.0 years on average; 2 (9%) are clinical associates, 16 (73%) are instructors, and 3 (14%) are assistant professors.
All faculty members presenting at the RIP session were members of the division. A senior faculty member (a professor in the Division of General Internal Medicine) helps to coordinate the conference. The group's research assistant was present at the sessions and was charged with data collection and collation.
The Johns Hopkins University institutional review board approved the study.
The Research in Progress Conference
During the 2009 academic year, our division held 15 RIP sessions. At each session, 1 faculty member presented a research proposal. The goal of each session was to provide a forum where faculty members could share their research ideas (specific aims, hypotheses, planned design, outcome measures, analytic plans, and preliminary results [if applicable]) in order to receive feedback. The senior faculty member met with the presenter prior to each session in order to: (1) ensure that half the RIP time was reserved for discussion and (2) review the presenter's goals so these would be made explicit to peers. The coordinator of the RIP conference facilitated the discussion, solicited input from all attendees, and encouraged constructive criticism.
Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis
At the end of each session, attendees (who were exclusively members of the hospitalist division) were asked to complete an anonymous survey. The 1‐page instrument was designed (1) with input from curriculum development experts4 and (2) after a review of the literature about RIP conferences. These steps conferred content validity to the instrument, which assessed perceptions about the session's quality and what was learned. Five‐point Likert scales were used to characterize the conference's success in several areas, including being intellectually/professionally stimulating and keeping them apprised of their colleagues' interests. The survey also assessed the participatory nature of the conference (balance of presentation vs discussion), its climate (extremely critical vs extremely supportive), and how the conference assisted the presenter. The presenters completed a distinct survey related to how helpful the conference was in improving/enhancing their projects. A final open‐ended section invited additional comments. The instrument was piloted and iteratively revised before its use in this study.
For the projects presented, we assessed the percentage that resulted in a peer‐reviewed publication or a presentation at a national meeting.
Results
The mean number of attendees at the RIP sessions was 9.6 persons. A total of 143 evaluations were completed. All 15 presenters (100%) completed their assessments. The research ideas presented spanned a breadth of topics in clinical research, quality improvement, policy, and professional development (Table 1).
| Session | Date | Presenter | Topic | Evaluations Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7/2008 | Dr. CS | Hospital medicine in Canada versus the United States | 7 |
| 2 | 7/2008 | Dr. RT | Procedures by hospitalists | 9 |
| 3 | 8/2008 | Dr. MA | Clostridium difficile treatment in the hospital | 11 |
| 4 | 8/2008 | Dr. EH | Active bed management | 6 |
| 5 | 9/2008 | Dr. AS | Medication reconciliation for geriatric inpatients | 10 |
| 6 | 9/2008 | Dr. DT | Time‐motion study of hospitalists | 10 |
| 7 | 10/2008 | Dr. KV | e‐Triage pilot | 16 |
| 8 | 11/2008 | Dr. EH | Assessing clinical performance of hospitalists | 7 |
| 9 | 12/2008 | Dr. SC | Trends and implications of hospitalists' morale | 8 |
| 10 | 1/2009 | Dr. TB | Lessons learned: tracking urinary catheter use at Bayview | 11 |
| 11 | 2/2009 | Dr. FK | Utilizing audit and feedback to improve performance in tobacco dependence counseling | 12 |
| 12 | 3/2009 | Dr. MK | Survivorship care plans | 7 |
| 13 | 4/2009 | Dr. DK | Outpatient provider preference for discharge summary format/style/length | 7 |
| 14 | 5/2009 | Dr. RW | Comparing preoperative consults done by hospitalists and cardiologists | 11 |
| 15 | 6/2009 | Dr. AK | Development of Web‐based messaging tool for providers | 12 |
Presenter Perspective
All 15 presenters (100%) felt a lot or tremendously supported during their sessions. Thirteen physicians (86%) believed that the sessions were a lot or tremendously helpful in advancing their projects. The presenters believed that the guidance and discussions related to their research ideas, aims, hypotheses, and plans were most helpful for advancing their projects (Table 2).
| Not at All, n (%) | A Little, n (%) | Some, n (%) | A Lot, n (%) | Tremendously, n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General questions: | |||||
| Intellectually/professionally stimulating | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (33) | 10 (66) |
| Feeling supported by your colleagues in your scholarly pursuits | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (27) | 11 (73) |
| Session helpful in the following areas: | |||||
| Advancing your project | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 5 (33) | 8 (53) |
| Generated new hypotheses | 1 (6) | 3 (20) | 5 (33) | 5 (33) | 1 (6) |
| Clarification of research questions | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 4 (27) | 7 (47) | 2 (13) |
| Ideas for alternate methods | 1 (6) | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 7 (47) | 4 (27) |
| New outcomes suggested | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 2 (13) | 5 (33) | 5 (33) |
| Strategies to improve or enhance data collection | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 0 (0) | 8 (53) | 5 (33) |
| Suggestions for alternate analyses or analytical strategies | 1 (1) | 1 (6) | 4 (27) | 5 (33) | 4 (27) |
| Input into what is most novel/emnteresting about this work | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 3 (20) | 6 (40) | 4 (27) |
| Guidance about the implications of the work | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 1 (6) | 7 (47) | 4 (27) |
| Ideas about next steps or future direction/studies | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (21) | 8 (57) | 3 (21) |
Examples of the written comments are:
I was overwhelmed by how engaged people were in my project.
The process of preparing for the session and then the discussion both helped my thinking. Colleagues were very supportive.
I am so glad I heard these comments and received this feedback now, rather than from peer reviewers selected by a journal to review my study. It would have been a much more difficult situation to fix at that later time.
Attendee Perspective
The majority of attendees (123 of 143, 86%) found the sessions to be a lot or extremely stimulating, and almost all (96%) were a lot or extremely satisfied with how the RIP sessions kept them abreast of their colleagues' academic interests. In addition, 92% judged the session's climate to be a lot or extremely supportive, and 88% deemed the balance of presentation to discussion to be just right. Attendees believed that they were most helpful to the presenter in terms of conceiving ideas for alternative methods to be used to answer the research question and in providing strategies to improve data collection (Table 3).
| Insight Offered | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Ideas for alternate methods | 92 (64%) |
| Strategies to improve data collection | 85 (59.4%) |
| New hypotheses generated | 84 (58.7%) |
| Ideas for next steps/future direction/studies | 83 (58%) |
| New outcomes suggested that should be considered | 69 (48%) |
| Clarification of the research questions | 61 (43%) |
| Input about what is most novel/emnteresting about the work | 60 (42%) |
| Guidance about the real implications of the work | 59 (41%) |
| Suggestions for alternate analyses or analytical strategies | 51 (36%) |
The free text comments primarily addressed how the presenters' research ideas were helped by the session:
There were great ideas for improvementincluding practical approaches for recruitment.
The session made me think of the daily routine things that we do that could be studied.
There were some great ideas to help Dr. A make the study more simple, doable, and practical. There were also some good ideas regarding potential sources of funding.
Academic Success
Of the 15 projects, 6 have been published in peer‐reviewed journals as first‐ or senior‐authored publications.510 Of these, 3 were presented at national meetings prior to publication. Four additional projects have been presented at a national society's annual meeting, all of which are being prepared for publication. Of the remaining 5 presentations, 4 were terminated because of the low likelihood of academic success. The remaining project is ongoing.
Comparatively, scholarly output in the prior year by the 24 physicians in the hospitalist group was 4 first‐ or senior‐authored publications in peer‐reviewed journals and 3 presentations at national meetings.
Discussion
In this article, we report our experience with the RIP conference. The sessions were perceived to be intellectually stimulating and supportive, whereas the discussions proved helpful in advancing project ideas. Ample discussion time and good attendance were thought to be critical to the success.
To our knowledge, this is the first article gathering feedback from attendees and presenters at a RIP conference and to track academic outcomes. Several types of meetings have been established within faculty and trainee groups to support and encourage scholarly activities.11, 12 The benefits of peer collaboration and peer mentoring have been described in the literature.13, 14 For example, Edwards described the success of shortstop meetings among small groups of faculty members every 4‐6 weeks in which discussions of research projects and mutual feedback would occur.15 Santucci described peer‐mentored research development meetings, with increased research productivity.12
Mentoring is critically important for academic success in medicine.1619 When divisions have limited senior mentors available, peer mentoring has proven to be indispensable as a mechanism to support faculty members.2022 The RIP conference provided a forum for peer mentoring and provided a partial solution to the limited resource of experienced research mentors in the division. The RIP sessions appear to have helped to bring the majority of presented ideas to academic fruition. Perhaps even more important, the sessions were able to terminate studies judged to have low academic promise before the faculty had invested significant time.
Several limitations of our study should be considered. First, this study involved a research‐in‐progress conference coordinated for a group of hospitalist physicians at 1 institution, and the results may not be generalizable. Second, although attendance was good at each conference, some faculty members did not come to many sessions. It is possible that those not attending may have rated the sessions differently. Session evaluations were anonymous, and we do not know whether specific attendees rated all sessions highly, thereby resulting in some degree of clustering. Third, this study did not compare the effectiveness of the RIP conference with other peer‐mentorship models. Finally, our study was uncontrolled. Although it would not be possible to restrict specific faculty from presenting at or attending the RIP conference, we intend to more carefully collect attendance data to see whether there might be a dose‐response effect with respect to participation in this conference and academic success.
In conclusion, our RIP conference was perceived as valuable by our group and was associated with academic success. In our division, the RIP conference serves as a way to operationalize peer mentoring. Our findings may help other groups to refine either the focus or format of their RIP sessions and those wishing to initiate such a conference.
The research‐in‐progress (RIP) conference is commonplace in academia, but there are no studies that objectively characterize its value. Bringing faculty together away from revenue‐generating activities carries a significant cost. As such, measuring the success of such gatherings is necessary.
Mentors are an invaluable influence on the careers of junior faculty members, helping them to produce high‐quality research.13 Unfortunately, some divisions lack mentorship to support the academic needs of less experienced faculty.1 Peer mentorship may be a solution. RIP sessions represent an opportunity to intentionally formalize peer mentoring. Further, these sessions can facilitate collaborations as individuals become aware of colleagues' interests. The goal of this study was to assess the value of the research‐in‐progress conference initiated within the hospitalist division at our institution.
Methods
Study Design
This cohort study was conducted to evaluate the value of the RIP conference among hospitalists in our division and the academic outcomes of the projects.
Setting and Participants
The study took place at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center (JHBMC), a 335‐bed university‐affiliated medical center in Baltimore, Maryland. The hospitalist division consists of faculty physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (20.06 FTE physicians and 7.41 FTE midlevel providers). Twelve (54%) of our faculty members are female, and the mean age of providers is 35.7 years. The providers have been practicing hospitalist medicine for 3.0 years on average; 2 (9%) are clinical associates, 16 (73%) are instructors, and 3 (14%) are assistant professors.
All faculty members presenting at the RIP session were members of the division. A senior faculty member (a professor in the Division of General Internal Medicine) helps to coordinate the conference. The group's research assistant was present at the sessions and was charged with data collection and collation.
The Johns Hopkins University institutional review board approved the study.
The Research in Progress Conference
During the 2009 academic year, our division held 15 RIP sessions. At each session, 1 faculty member presented a research proposal. The goal of each session was to provide a forum where faculty members could share their research ideas (specific aims, hypotheses, planned design, outcome measures, analytic plans, and preliminary results [if applicable]) in order to receive feedback. The senior faculty member met with the presenter prior to each session in order to: (1) ensure that half the RIP time was reserved for discussion and (2) review the presenter's goals so these would be made explicit to peers. The coordinator of the RIP conference facilitated the discussion, solicited input from all attendees, and encouraged constructive criticism.
Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis
At the end of each session, attendees (who were exclusively members of the hospitalist division) were asked to complete an anonymous survey. The 1‐page instrument was designed (1) with input from curriculum development experts4 and (2) after a review of the literature about RIP conferences. These steps conferred content validity to the instrument, which assessed perceptions about the session's quality and what was learned. Five‐point Likert scales were used to characterize the conference's success in several areas, including being intellectually/professionally stimulating and keeping them apprised of their colleagues' interests. The survey also assessed the participatory nature of the conference (balance of presentation vs discussion), its climate (extremely critical vs extremely supportive), and how the conference assisted the presenter. The presenters completed a distinct survey related to how helpful the conference was in improving/enhancing their projects. A final open‐ended section invited additional comments. The instrument was piloted and iteratively revised before its use in this study.
For the projects presented, we assessed the percentage that resulted in a peer‐reviewed publication or a presentation at a national meeting.
Results
The mean number of attendees at the RIP sessions was 9.6 persons. A total of 143 evaluations were completed. All 15 presenters (100%) completed their assessments. The research ideas presented spanned a breadth of topics in clinical research, quality improvement, policy, and professional development (Table 1).
| Session | Date | Presenter | Topic | Evaluations Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7/2008 | Dr. CS | Hospital medicine in Canada versus the United States | 7 |
| 2 | 7/2008 | Dr. RT | Procedures by hospitalists | 9 |
| 3 | 8/2008 | Dr. MA | Clostridium difficile treatment in the hospital | 11 |
| 4 | 8/2008 | Dr. EH | Active bed management | 6 |
| 5 | 9/2008 | Dr. AS | Medication reconciliation for geriatric inpatients | 10 |
| 6 | 9/2008 | Dr. DT | Time‐motion study of hospitalists | 10 |
| 7 | 10/2008 | Dr. KV | e‐Triage pilot | 16 |
| 8 | 11/2008 | Dr. EH | Assessing clinical performance of hospitalists | 7 |
| 9 | 12/2008 | Dr. SC | Trends and implications of hospitalists' morale | 8 |
| 10 | 1/2009 | Dr. TB | Lessons learned: tracking urinary catheter use at Bayview | 11 |
| 11 | 2/2009 | Dr. FK | Utilizing audit and feedback to improve performance in tobacco dependence counseling | 12 |
| 12 | 3/2009 | Dr. MK | Survivorship care plans | 7 |
| 13 | 4/2009 | Dr. DK | Outpatient provider preference for discharge summary format/style/length | 7 |
| 14 | 5/2009 | Dr. RW | Comparing preoperative consults done by hospitalists and cardiologists | 11 |
| 15 | 6/2009 | Dr. AK | Development of Web‐based messaging tool for providers | 12 |
Presenter Perspective
All 15 presenters (100%) felt a lot or tremendously supported during their sessions. Thirteen physicians (86%) believed that the sessions were a lot or tremendously helpful in advancing their projects. The presenters believed that the guidance and discussions related to their research ideas, aims, hypotheses, and plans were most helpful for advancing their projects (Table 2).
| Not at All, n (%) | A Little, n (%) | Some, n (%) | A Lot, n (%) | Tremendously, n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General questions: | |||||
| Intellectually/professionally stimulating | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (33) | 10 (66) |
| Feeling supported by your colleagues in your scholarly pursuits | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (27) | 11 (73) |
| Session helpful in the following areas: | |||||
| Advancing your project | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 5 (33) | 8 (53) |
| Generated new hypotheses | 1 (6) | 3 (20) | 5 (33) | 5 (33) | 1 (6) |
| Clarification of research questions | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 4 (27) | 7 (47) | 2 (13) |
| Ideas for alternate methods | 1 (6) | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 7 (47) | 4 (27) |
| New outcomes suggested | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 2 (13) | 5 (33) | 5 (33) |
| Strategies to improve or enhance data collection | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 0 (0) | 8 (53) | 5 (33) |
| Suggestions for alternate analyses or analytical strategies | 1 (1) | 1 (6) | 4 (27) | 5 (33) | 4 (27) |
| Input into what is most novel/emnteresting about this work | 0 (0) | 2 (13) | 3 (20) | 6 (40) | 4 (27) |
| Guidance about the implications of the work | 1 (6) | 2 (13) | 1 (6) | 7 (47) | 4 (27) |
| Ideas about next steps or future direction/studies | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (21) | 8 (57) | 3 (21) |
Examples of the written comments are:
I was overwhelmed by how engaged people were in my project.
The process of preparing for the session and then the discussion both helped my thinking. Colleagues were very supportive.
I am so glad I heard these comments and received this feedback now, rather than from peer reviewers selected by a journal to review my study. It would have been a much more difficult situation to fix at that later time.
Attendee Perspective
The majority of attendees (123 of 143, 86%) found the sessions to be a lot or extremely stimulating, and almost all (96%) were a lot or extremely satisfied with how the RIP sessions kept them abreast of their colleagues' academic interests. In addition, 92% judged the session's climate to be a lot or extremely supportive, and 88% deemed the balance of presentation to discussion to be just right. Attendees believed that they were most helpful to the presenter in terms of conceiving ideas for alternative methods to be used to answer the research question and in providing strategies to improve data collection (Table 3).
| Insight Offered | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Ideas for alternate methods | 92 (64%) |
| Strategies to improve data collection | 85 (59.4%) |
| New hypotheses generated | 84 (58.7%) |
| Ideas for next steps/future direction/studies | 83 (58%) |
| New outcomes suggested that should be considered | 69 (48%) |
| Clarification of the research questions | 61 (43%) |
| Input about what is most novel/emnteresting about the work | 60 (42%) |
| Guidance about the real implications of the work | 59 (41%) |
| Suggestions for alternate analyses or analytical strategies | 51 (36%) |
The free text comments primarily addressed how the presenters' research ideas were helped by the session:
There were great ideas for improvementincluding practical approaches for recruitment.
The session made me think of the daily routine things that we do that could be studied.
There were some great ideas to help Dr. A make the study more simple, doable, and practical. There were also some good ideas regarding potential sources of funding.
Academic Success
Of the 15 projects, 6 have been published in peer‐reviewed journals as first‐ or senior‐authored publications.510 Of these, 3 were presented at national meetings prior to publication. Four additional projects have been presented at a national society's annual meeting, all of which are being prepared for publication. Of the remaining 5 presentations, 4 were terminated because of the low likelihood of academic success. The remaining project is ongoing.
Comparatively, scholarly output in the prior year by the 24 physicians in the hospitalist group was 4 first‐ or senior‐authored publications in peer‐reviewed journals and 3 presentations at national meetings.
Discussion
In this article, we report our experience with the RIP conference. The sessions were perceived to be intellectually stimulating and supportive, whereas the discussions proved helpful in advancing project ideas. Ample discussion time and good attendance were thought to be critical to the success.
To our knowledge, this is the first article gathering feedback from attendees and presenters at a RIP conference and to track academic outcomes. Several types of meetings have been established within faculty and trainee groups to support and encourage scholarly activities.11, 12 The benefits of peer collaboration and peer mentoring have been described in the literature.13, 14 For example, Edwards described the success of shortstop meetings among small groups of faculty members every 4‐6 weeks in which discussions of research projects and mutual feedback would occur.15 Santucci described peer‐mentored research development meetings, with increased research productivity.12
Mentoring is critically important for academic success in medicine.1619 When divisions have limited senior mentors available, peer mentoring has proven to be indispensable as a mechanism to support faculty members.2022 The RIP conference provided a forum for peer mentoring and provided a partial solution to the limited resource of experienced research mentors in the division. The RIP sessions appear to have helped to bring the majority of presented ideas to academic fruition. Perhaps even more important, the sessions were able to terminate studies judged to have low academic promise before the faculty had invested significant time.
Several limitations of our study should be considered. First, this study involved a research‐in‐progress conference coordinated for a group of hospitalist physicians at 1 institution, and the results may not be generalizable. Second, although attendance was good at each conference, some faculty members did not come to many sessions. It is possible that those not attending may have rated the sessions differently. Session evaluations were anonymous, and we do not know whether specific attendees rated all sessions highly, thereby resulting in some degree of clustering. Third, this study did not compare the effectiveness of the RIP conference with other peer‐mentorship models. Finally, our study was uncontrolled. Although it would not be possible to restrict specific faculty from presenting at or attending the RIP conference, we intend to more carefully collect attendance data to see whether there might be a dose‐response effect with respect to participation in this conference and academic success.
In conclusion, our RIP conference was perceived as valuable by our group and was associated with academic success. In our division, the RIP conference serves as a way to operationalize peer mentoring. Our findings may help other groups to refine either the focus or format of their RIP sessions and those wishing to initiate such a conference.
- ,,, et al.Junior faculty members' mentoring relationships and their professional development in US medical schools.Acad Med.1998;73:318–323.
- ,.Mentors, Advisors and Role Models in Graduate and Professional Education.Washington, DC:Association of Academic Health Centers;1996.
- ,.Characteristics of the successful researcher and implications for faculty development.J Med Educ.1986;61:22–31.
- ,,.Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six‐Step Approach.2nd ed.Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press;2009.
- ,,, et al.Characteristics of hospitalists and hospitalist programs in the United States and Canada.J Clin Outcomes Meas.2009;16:69–74
- ,,, et al.Procedures performed by hospitalist and non‐hospitalist general internists.J Gen Intern Med.2010;25:448–452.
- ,,, et al.Intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of severe Clostridium difficile colitis: an observational study and review of the literature [review].J Hosp Med.2010;5:E1–E9.
- ,,, et al.Active bed management by hospitalists and emergency department throughput.Ann Intern Med.2008;149:804–811.
- ,,, et al.Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers.J Gen Intern Med.2009;24(Suppl 2):S459–S466.
- ,,, et al.Utilizing audit and feedback to improve hospitalists' performance in tobacco dependence counseling.Nicotine Tob Res.2010;12:797–800.
- ,,, et al.An internal medicine interest group research program can improve scholarly productivity of medical students and foster mentoring relationships with internists.Teach Learn Med.2008;20:163–167.
- ,,, et al.Peer‐mentored research development meeting: a model for successful peer mentoring among junior level researchers.Acad Psychiatry.2008;32:493–497.
- ,,, et al.Mentoring junior faculty in geriatric oncology: report from the cancer and aging research group.J Clin Oncol.2008;26:3125–3127.
- ,,the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.Investigator‐led clinical research consortia: the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.Crit Care Med.2009;37(1):S165–S172.
- .“Short stops”: peer support of scholarly activity.Acad Med.2002;77:939.
- ,,,,,,.Mentorship in academic general internal medicine. Results of a survey of mentors.J Gen Intern Med.2005;20:1014–1018.
- ,,, et al.Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees.Acad Med.2009;84:140–144.
- ,,.Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review.JAMA.2006;296:1103–1115.
- ,,, et al.Assessing the role of influential mentors in the research development of primary care fellows.Acad Med.2004;79:865–872.
- ,,.Peer group mentoring of junior faculty.Acad Psychiatry.2008;32:230–235.
- ,,,.Facilitated peer mentorship: a pilot program for academic advancement of female medical faculty.J Womens Health.2008;17:1009–1015.
- ,Mentoring faculty in academic medicine. A new paradigm?J Gen Intern Med.2005;20:866–870.
- ,,, et al.Junior faculty members' mentoring relationships and their professional development in US medical schools.Acad Med.1998;73:318–323.
- ,.Mentors, Advisors and Role Models in Graduate and Professional Education.Washington, DC:Association of Academic Health Centers;1996.
- ,.Characteristics of the successful researcher and implications for faculty development.J Med Educ.1986;61:22–31.
- ,,.Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six‐Step Approach.2nd ed.Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press;2009.
- ,,, et al.Characteristics of hospitalists and hospitalist programs in the United States and Canada.J Clin Outcomes Meas.2009;16:69–74
- ,,, et al.Procedures performed by hospitalist and non‐hospitalist general internists.J Gen Intern Med.2010;25:448–452.
- ,,, et al.Intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of severe Clostridium difficile colitis: an observational study and review of the literature [review].J Hosp Med.2010;5:E1–E9.
- ,,, et al.Active bed management by hospitalists and emergency department throughput.Ann Intern Med.2008;149:804–811.
- ,,, et al.Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers.J Gen Intern Med.2009;24(Suppl 2):S459–S466.
- ,,, et al.Utilizing audit and feedback to improve hospitalists' performance in tobacco dependence counseling.Nicotine Tob Res.2010;12:797–800.
- ,,, et al.An internal medicine interest group research program can improve scholarly productivity of medical students and foster mentoring relationships with internists.Teach Learn Med.2008;20:163–167.
- ,,, et al.Peer‐mentored research development meeting: a model for successful peer mentoring among junior level researchers.Acad Psychiatry.2008;32:493–497.
- ,,, et al.Mentoring junior faculty in geriatric oncology: report from the cancer and aging research group.J Clin Oncol.2008;26:3125–3127.
- ,,the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.Investigator‐led clinical research consortia: the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.Crit Care Med.2009;37(1):S165–S172.
- .“Short stops”: peer support of scholarly activity.Acad Med.2002;77:939.
- ,,,,,,.Mentorship in academic general internal medicine. Results of a survey of mentors.J Gen Intern Med.2005;20:1014–1018.
- ,,, et al.Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees.Acad Med.2009;84:140–144.
- ,,.Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review.JAMA.2006;296:1103–1115.
- ,,, et al.Assessing the role of influential mentors in the research development of primary care fellows.Acad Med.2004;79:865–872.
- ,,.Peer group mentoring of junior faculty.Acad Psychiatry.2008;32:230–235.
- ,,,.Facilitated peer mentorship: a pilot program for academic advancement of female medical faculty.J Womens Health.2008;17:1009–1015.
- ,Mentoring faculty in academic medicine. A new paradigm?J Gen Intern Med.2005;20:866–870.
Copyright © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine